VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE IN SCOTLAND. 485 
It is difficulty at first sight, to make out, from the above 
note, what the precise grounds of the sheriff’s decision are. 
It reminds us of a story,, we have seen somewhere, of an 
Irishman defending himself in Court for having cracked his 
neighbour’s kettle :—the defence was, “ first, that the kettle 
was cracked when borrowed; second, that it was whole when 
returned; and third, that he never had the kettle.” How like 
this is the sheriff’s three pleas for the defender. Let any one 
look carefully at his note, and see. First he argues, that the 
cow did not die of the cause of death, sworn to by the veteri¬ 
nary evidence; second, that if she died, that cause was not 
in existence at the time of sale; and third, if it was, that it 
was not latent (or hidden), but of large size, and visible to 
the purchaser. Inconsistency, however, is not the evil most 
to be complained of. Justice demands, that in a note, de¬ 
signed to explain the reasons upon which a judgment is 
founded, the facts of the case should be clearly stated. How 
far this is done, our object is now to show: first, in regard 
to the general merits of the case ; and second, in special 
regard to the veterinary evidence. 
On looking over the sheriff’s note, the first thing that 
attracts attention is the prominence given to Smith’s not 
having informed Rainnie of the cow’s death and proposed 
dissection. This is four times alluded to, and made a prin¬ 
ciple ground for assoilzying the defender; yet the fact was 
simply the reverse of what the sheriff states it to be, and is 
so granted by the defender himself, in his answer to the 
statement of the pursuer. The following extracts from the 
sheriff’s note, and from the statements in the process, which 
the sheriff says, he has “ considered,” will show this more 
clearly: 
Extracts from Sheriff's Note. 
1. “ Instead of intimating the 
cow’s death to the defender, and 
requesting his presence at a dis¬ 
section of the body,” &c. 
2. “ The evidence of the al¬ 
leged fact . . . consists of the 
opinion of the two farriers, se¬ 
lected by the pursuer without 
any intimation to the defender,” 
&c. 
3. “ It was unquestionably the 
duty of the pursuer, if he meant 
to go against the defender, to 
VOL. XXV. 3 T 
Extract from Statements in Sum¬ 
mons of Pursuer , and Answers 
by Defender. 
Statement 5. 
“ That on the twelfth day of the 
last-mentioned month (April), 
the pursuer, having previously 
intimated to the defender the 
death of the said cow, and his 
intention of recovering re-pay¬ 
ment of said price, on the ground 
of her having been diseased when 
sold,” &c. 
